Search This Blog

Monday, January 14, 2013

A bit more on the 'EU speech to end all EU speeches'

David Cameron, interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme, has given some more details about his forthcoming big EU speech to end all EU speeches (well...). So what should we expect? Here are some key excerpts:

He said a new EU settlement "is not something we should be frightened of, it is something we should embrace."

He believes there's a "real chance" of it happening and that

"The Dutch and German Prime Ministers have both been making arguments along those lines."

That he floats Germany is interesting. He was not to be drawn on what exactly the referendum would be on or when:"We will have a new
settlement andthen will put that to the
British people in a very straightforward way so that they can give or not give
their consent to those changes"But what if the reform-sceptics - on all sides - are right and reform is not on the table, would he ever consider leaving the EU? "If you are saying to me, would Britain collapse if it left
the European Union? No, of course not. You could chose a different path. The question is
what is in our national interest and I have always been very clear it is in our
national interest as a trading nation to be in the single market but not like
Norway just accept all the rules of the single market pay for the privilege of
being part of itand as it were be
governed by fax from Brussels."

This is all familiar stuff: Cameron thinks the UK is better off in (he's been saying that for ages), is committed to the UK public being given "fresh consent", implicitly via a referendum, and he denies all charges of "blackmailing" or inadvertently risking the UK's EU membership via renegotiation.

9 comments:

Once again this proven lie about Norway being ruled by fax, the time has got to come when he stops treating the British people like fools. Or perhaps a better way of putting that, is that it's about time the British people got fed up with him treating them like fools. UKIP are getting more and more coverage now their numbers are improving, and with a good showing at the upcoming local and European elections the dodgy myths that Cameron et al are selling will be shown for what they are, lies.

Yet again, Cameron has blatently lied about the EEA/EFTA position and the 'Norway option'

It is so easy to refute his claim that Norway has no say in the rules governing the Single Market that he makes himself look a fool by keep repeating it.

Until he can be honest about the 'little things' why on earth should we trust him to be honest over the bigger issue of the UK's subservient position to an unelected and unaccountable foreign Oligarchy.

The more the EU 'issue' is debated, the more coverage UKIP gets. And they are telling the truth in plain, simple to understand language.

We will be absolutely flooded with Welfare Migrants from Romania and Bulgaria next year .... and Cameron is doing absolutely NOTHING to prevent it. He is an irresponsible Prime Minister of an irresponsible coalition Government.

Are we Blair yet? Blair gave away billions ion the hope of becoming the EU president, and failed. Cameron is prepared to go against the manifest wishes of his party and the nation, and carry on propping up the EU. There must be a motive, and when a motive is hard to find, corruption becomes the only excuse. Cameron must wish to defy us all only for his personal gain; presumably he still wants to follow Blair's lead?

Fortunately, the long-denied British people now realise that a vote for UKIP cancels out the need to go on their hands and knees time and time again to their masters in Parliament for a referendum.A vote for UKIP IS one.

Times have changed. What once was impossible is now very much on the cards, repatriation of powers that never should have been allowed to be taken away is now seen as a real outcome. Still, many things can go wrong and organisations will rarely, if ever, be filled with employees willing to work to put themselves out of jobs. Maybe EU institutions are filled by altruistic people, but again, their recent behaviour regarding the MFF makes me doubt it very much.

A bit of criticism:Not many recent items published about the need for increased transparency. There is a recent Swedish book about how whistleblowers are treated by EU institutions. Not sure if it is available in English yet. The gist is that: The current set up makes it very risky and possibly very costly for an individual to do what is right. Conversely it is personally profitable (at least careerwise) to use 'social competence', keep quiet and deal with whistleblowers themselves rather than what the whistleblowers say.Increased transparency would help but increased transparency will not happen without pressure from he only ones with enough clout to force the issue: The nation states that are funding the institutions.

"the most problematic aspect of Norway's form of association with the EU is the fact that Norway is in practice bound to adopt EU policies and rules on a broad range of issues without being a member and without voting rights. This raises democratic problems. Norway is not represented in decision-making processes that have a direct consequence for Norway, and neither do we have any significant influence on them.."

If Britain were outside the EU, its exporters could decide individually whether meeting EU import guidelines makes financial sense. It may for some and not for others. What's wrong with this scenario? Nothing. Give Briain back its sovereignty and allow its businesses to decide for themselves what they want to produce and for whom.

If you read fuller details of what he said it is clear that he hasn't a clue about his subject! For instance he thinks you have to be in the EU to be in the Single Market. UNTRUE You can be in itr via EEA.

He do get a say in Single Market rules since Norway is NOT ruled by Fax, THe detailed rules are drawn up outside the EU altogether Increasingly they are agreed at a global level, either through trade bodies, standards organisations, or international bodies, many of them acting under the aegis of the United Nations. There are also the G-8 and the G-20 "summits" which can act as initiating bodies.

Anybody who can frame a vital policy based on silly myths does not deserve support.